Talk:Standard Model
|
|
Shouldn't the elementary particles also be mentioned, in addition to the forces? I.e. two quarks, electron and neutrino, and then two more families like that. AxelBoldt
Shouldn't we mention the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model?
Go to http://www-wisconsin.cern.ch/physics/files/r20401.pdf. It has proof that Higgs particles have been found.
Perhaps it would be helpful to include a cross reference to the photino in the See Also section?
- Be bold! If you think it belongs there, add it! moink 07:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- (p.s. yep. it appears i'm following you around:) )
- Confusingly, this new model is still called by the same name as the old one: the Standard Model.
Removed this sentence. The Standard Model is a working model, not a fundamental theory. As such it is constantly refactored to account for new data and new ideas. The Standard Model is the state-of-the-art in physics—the model is expected to evolve.
—Herbee 11:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Agasides added the "varying physical constants" material back to the article, saying Its not a speculation. Go find a laboratory similar to Webbs laboratory, and repeat the experiment.. Unfortunately, it is a speculation, very much outside of the mainstream of physics. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it hasn't met the burden of proof necessary to convince the rest of the physics community of such a radical phenomenon. Unconfirmed speculations belong on arXiv.org, not Wikipedia. Anyway, as [1] (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/4/9) makes clear, the present experimental data implies that even if the value of constants like α are actually position-dependent, the variation is unbelievably tiny; it's hardly a repeatable lab experiment. -- CYD